Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 4, 2012 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT

8:30 pm
>> if some factors are good enough, you might want to take the-someplace. >> there is no perfect project and there is no offal project. if you look into the details of each one, each of them will come to bear. >> i get would be interesting and i don't know what the methodology would be, to do some comparative analysis so you are not just looking at each individual project and saying -- and just using the environment for an example. it's moderately favorable. it would be interesting to see how it would compare to the regional groundwater project. >> there is a slide coming up -- this is a dollar slide.
8:31 pm
we just develop the energy consumption. we throw the state water project in for comparison. we just want to make sure everyone knows that we can do better than that. this is energy in megawatt hours. the west side project and the san francisco project -- they are all in the same ballpark of energy consumption per million produced. the west side project because it relies on reverse osmosis for treatment. that is high energy usage. the ground water project comes from the 250 ft pumping with you have to pull out of the ground. it costs electricity. the desalination project is the
8:32 pm
concept of reverse osmosis. this is closer to recycled water because it's brackish water. if we were trying to do it to ocean water the number would be much higher. at the bottom is the regional number and this is part of a we are blessed with with the gravity system. the cost is essentially a zero and this doesn't include the fact we're generating electricity with that. the cost over the last six months in 2011 was about 22 gigawatts for all the water we delivered. just the water supply portion was about 230 gigawatts. 10 times as much energy produced. from an energy perspective, it is number-one. there are other things to
8:33 pm
consider. >> the state water has a similar offset? >> they do not have a similar offset. we just got to figuring out how much they generate and does that offset some of it? >> the next time we see these, i think it would be helpful to have a separate column that includes the offset because i think that their relative part of -- relevant part of the equation. i do need to see the map on the ground water thing. you may well be right on that but it would be surprising if the ground water project had the same energy consumption. >> it is basically the lift with negligible cost. we will show you all the details. >> is counterintuitive. i would appreciate it. >> it is an interesting
8:34 pm
criteria. i would be curious from the community interest and water quality, what you are using as criteria for moderately favorable or this rating system. does that come into this under the affordability. on the other side, you have done some of that. i'm talking more of a pure environmental perspective and what exactly are you using? >> this is partly commission reaction. we can delve into much more detail that will ultimately reflect the values of the commission. >> this is a question for the commission. there are folks who tried to
8:35 pm
make this much more numerical and instead of having the metrics and there would be some of it -- but as i look around for how people have tried to implement the triple bottom line, it seems to have evolved to something like this so you don't have to argue about what the weighting factor is that we apply to the environmental. we have five different answers to that question and you don't have to pin it down. one thing public decision makers are good at is balancing the elements on the chart like this. most of the triple bottom line and up with something like this. if the commission wants to get
8:36 pm
more we can do something and that is something we should discuss. one of the difficulties of this chart is that you need to stare at it for a while. if you have a number on the bottom, it makes you stop thinking. the process drives a conclusion without appreciating the elements that are in it. >> [inaudible] >> if you stare really hard or drink the wrong thing. >> i think it's important to point out to the public that when you say a retreat, as people think we're going to a country club or some fancy place. but we are having their retreat where? >> usually attach a city facility. >> maybe we shouldn't call it a
8:37 pm
retreat. >> and offsite meeting. >> off site workshop. >> the taxpayers think we're wasting money and we are not. >> >> it is typically a 1 day meeting and a workshop setting usually at a city facility and is open to the public. >> we tend to go into much greater detail on two or three issues and try to engage the commission so we can set our annual work plan. >> i think that is right. >> thank you. >> i'm not that interested in a system as much as i am a better understanding on the breakdown of what is going into these considerations. what are you factoring into the environmental effect and what does that mean? what the different pieces and what of the community interests and jobs created and the
8:38 pm
economic opportunities and affordability? what does that include and just to break down a better definition of what is going into defining those measures? >> i think that is important. on the prior page, it is important to get as quantitative and explicit as you can be as part of the transparent requirement that we are not just throwing darts here. we rate something a certain way for an objective set of criteria and to the extent we can do that, it is valuable. if we can balance it out, that is where the prospects don't -- processes do not serve well. >> part of this exercise today is we are presenting with you with how to look at our supply options. we have had conversations with the waste water enterprise and they are working on similar types of approaches.
8:39 pm
from our perspective, it would be better to have one methodology to apply across the organization. so when we are speaking to you, there are not different transition books to figure out how things fallout. starting with some sort of quantitative approach on one side and breaking it down a little more, there is a value presentation on the matrix. it works for you, we can develop that more and go into the august workshop and have a discussion across party lines looking at how things might play out. is it more important we are generating electricity or is there something else we need to be doing because there are solar projects to balance out? waste water folks are looking at how they capture rainwater and such. there are lots of things to work on. your feedback today is are we
8:40 pm
going in the right direction? >> yes. i think we are. with regard to methodology. >> i agree with that. we will have a chance at the august workshop to take it out for a spin and c l works. if we don't feel satisfied with that, we can change it. >> i have a couple of questions. the transfer of waters, did they go into storage? >> yes. we would not have to build new facilities. we would basically pick up the water at the dam and in wet years, the water with spill out and in dry years, it would augment our storage going into what could be a drought.
8:41 pm
that is where the value comes in. if the following two years, after we put the water into storage, we have let years, no harm, no foul. but there were too dry years, that's what we would need. >> my second question is the regional water program. don't those regional folks take that water now? >> yes. the groundwater storage and recovery project, yes. daly city, san bruno and cal water all have wells they pump from the aquifer. that would be to get them to modify the pumping regime so they would take less water in normal and what years and more water in dry years. >>that would be to the benefit f
8:42 pm
the regional system. >> i guess i'm still needing help and maybe we're going to get to this more in the workshop, but on how we're going to get to prioritizing. if we see that there are all pluses, does that mean it's a go or are there going to -- is there going to be more of a rigorous process to determine whether or is a go or not? >> the final decision rests with you. it could have all pluses but for some other reason you don't want to see it go, -- >> we should find a way to add that to the chart. >> that is part of the discussion. you are making a value judgment of project against project. there might be things you like in one project that exceed the expectations of something else. you are going to have to make a judgment call at some time. >> that's why i'm asking for
8:43 pm
more detail on some of these categories to make an informed decision. >> that is what we will work on between now and the august workshop. mr. ritchie did present this to the water subcommittee and they had some feedback for him and i'm sure we will send it back to our remaining said the committees and we will do that before the august workshop so we will have some input from them as well. >> one of the comments is you talk about public support, where are your comments for opposition? [laughter] i think that would be a negative. >> that is interesting that you bring that up because i thought community interests -- but that's part of the definition. >> support it cuts both ways. total lack of support is a very telling thing.
8:44 pm
>> there may be things that constitute fatal flaws. they may look at a project and it may be ok on balance but there's some element that so bad or the perception of it is so bad it would jeopardize the ability to pass bonds or you would basically say let's not do that even though there may be some pluses on the page. one of the things that is powerful is that it gives you the ability to do that. part of our obligation is to explain ourselves as we go on and this helps explain ourselves and helps us make judgments about fatal flaws. that is part of what people can look at to understand how we are making decisions. anything else? >> i think that does it. >> anything else commissioners? thank you very much. looking ford to the workshop.
8:45 pm
public comments -- looking forward to the workshop. public comment? >> thank you for the opportunity to comment. i'm with the 12 labour trust. two meetings ago, there is a discussion about rates for wholesale customers. the concern is so little water is being used we might have to charge more to cover fixed costs. this shows that from four years ago until now, water use has dropped by 45 million gallons a day. that's almost a 20% decrease. despite the slight lift in increased use this year because of a very dry winter, projections are to remain flat for the next couple of years and will probably be back to normal. but the graph in today's
8:46 pm
presentation on page nine shows that by 2015, expectations were back to 215 million gallons a day. i think that's very pessimistic. i think conservation is your tuesday, and there's a lot of talk about water and concern and this memo here shows for the next few years is not expected to increase. on this cost per acre foot in $2,018, -- in 2018 dollars. $2,423 per acre foot. the side note is the cost -- that's not the one they are not quite match that here. the costs is a assumes pg&e --
8:47 pm
the puc will only use it -- one of every three years. that's a more accurate figure but compare it to water conservation and it's much more expensive. the water conservation is an average of the 33 programs from the 2011 and conservation programs. we're always talking about going after the low hanging fruit. my sense is there are a lot of conservation measures that would come in maybe higher than 1089 but less than 2000 for under 23. i encourage you to include conservation measures and that matrix and i think we will see a lot of pluses there yet. we have great insurance in the
8:48 pm
water banks at don pedro. greater than hetch hetchy. there's enough water in the system right now which is full for four years. that's a pretty long drop fully tapped our supply. >> a discussion of the use of the water bank is a longer discussion and we are going to have here but it is considered part of total storage and is not considered new and additional. it's not in addition to the 265 we do not have. i think you are right about conservation. that is it's always better not to use it and use it twice or once and it's cheaper if you have options to there. the question is whether we have saturated the market or not. on the unit costs, we continue to have some discussion.
8:49 pm
the chart that is out there is problematic in that it considers all water being equally value and that's not true. water in a wet year is not as valuable as a water -- as water in a dry year. i appreciate your comments and it will make it a rich discussion come the workshop. additional public comments? >> it does it make sense for water conservation to be part of this matrix? >> yes. we are happy to add it if you go back to the presentation trade what peter did not mention is we show the big effective conservation in 2035 on top of the already low water usage. we will cut demand by 24% total with all the conservation measures. we need to bring forward how we're going to do it.
8:50 pm
is a lot. >> that's an ambitious program and it would have to be. thank you for that clarification. it would have to be something above and beyond what we are planning to do. i ask the question whether we have less than anything on the table and the answer i got back was no. we haven't left anything on the table with the possible exception that there may be some opportunities because of the automatic meter reading. at the time it was being analyzed, it was an expensive project all by itself. we are doing it anyway, so there may be some opportunities that have opened up. if there are additional opportunities, conservation, that we should identify those and include those. that would be additional. commissioners, is there anything else? with the additional public comment? thank you.
8:51 pm
this was very informative, and i look forward to the august workshop. madam secretary, item 14? >> authorized the general manager to execute an mou to establish the roles and responsibilities of seven participating agencies in the recycled water project and sharing the project's capital costs, an amount not to exceed 27,000 and with approximately six months. this is a 50% cost share. >> i am the assistant general manager for water, with the previous discussion. this is the project we have been working with the city of south san francisco, from the waste water treatment plant. we will deliver that the golden
8:52 pm
gate national cemetery, with the retail customer of ours, to offset the retail supply there. there is not a huge amount of water. this could result in benefits from other customers that would be on the pipeline alignment. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> we would like to move the item. >> is there any public comment? all of those in favor? opposed? in 14 carries. and as we have no closed item, item 15 to 19 are moot, is there new business? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned.
8:53 pm
8:54 pm
8:55 pm
8:56 pm
8:57 pm
8:58 pm
8:59 pm